This is also the second video I've seen where a GTX1070 + High settings (vs the GTX1080 + Ultra we see most places) seems to oddly favor Ryzen over the 7700k in a lot of titles it usually doesn't. Weird.

This is also the second video I've seen where a GTX1070 + High settings (vs the GTX1080 + Ultra we see most places) seems to oddly favor Ryzen over the 7700k in a lot of titles it usually doesn't. Weird.

Good to see the improvement, I'm hoping to see better results over the next few weeks while I make up my mind which way I'm going as far as an upgrade. I'm really waiting on the r5 launch when everything gets retested with the latest bios and hopefully the memory issues worked out.

This is also the second video I've seen where a GTX1070 + High settings (vs the GTX1080 + Ultra we see most places) seems to oddly favor Ryzen over the 7700k in a lot of titles it usually doesn't. Weird.

Click to expand...

Doesn't that just make the GPU the bottleneck though?

Also, he benched the 7700K with memory at 3200, why exactly? Doesn't that just make a bias toward Ryzen? Even though the 7700K still came up as top dog in numbers.

I watched the video, and if I was paying attention is was showing that Ryzen is MUCH more capable than previously thought. Though it did lose somewhat badly in RotTR, almost all the games were showing decent gains making it close to (or even beating) the 7700K and it destroyed it in Crysis 3.

This is huge news. I can't wait to get my Flare X kit and see how much 3200 speed helps. Really sad AMD couldn't have had all this ready a month ago. The narrative would have been very different and they may have already lost a bunch of sales.

Really sad AMD couldn't have had all this ready a month ago. The narrative would have been very different and they may have already lost a bunch of sales.

Click to expand...

Software improvements aside, the narrative remains- you're working far harder to get memory running at Ryzen-boosting speeds than you are with a contemporary Intel platform, and if you don't go through that trouble, you're behind for gaming.

Granted what's needed to get there has been highlighted and for those interested in getting competitive gaming performance with excellent compute performance, Ryzen is difficult to ignore.

Also, he benched the 7700K with memory at 3200, why exactly? Doesn't that just make a bias toward Ryzen? Even though the 7700K still came up as top dog in numbers.

Click to expand...

He dropped down settings a notch likely to try and relieve some of the GPU bottleneck. But yes, it's likely a bit more GPU bound.

He mentions the Intel memory at the start. It's a fair criticism, but the 3200 on the Intel did have some good timings. I'd have liked to see a 3600 comparison as well, but you can compare the 3200 ryzen to the intel as well.

I wouldn't say the 7700k was top dog. They seemed to trade blows when you considered both averages and mins.

Software improvements aside, the narrative remains- you're working far harder to get memory running at Ryzen-boosting speeds than you are with a contemporary Intel platform, and if you don't go through that trouble, you're behind for gaming.

Granted what's needed to get there has been highlighted and for those interested in getting competitive gaming performance with excellent compute performance, Ryzen is difficult to ignore.

Click to expand...

If I can be 100% honest (not that I haven't been this entire time....), but Ryzen being what it is, kinda takes me back to the good old days of Overclocking. Even the 7700K sucking a bit at it, it's a breath of fresh air to me. If you want an epic overclock, or more speed than the next fool, you .... *gasp* ... actually have to work at it!! (That's not a jab at you or anyone here, just my opinion in general.)

We've just gotten too complacent with these cookie-cutter overclocks. It's so bad that people have been factoring in the damn Boosts into whether a chip does 'good' or not. Flogging Ryzen for being a "bad overclocker" because an 1800X has a Boost of 4GHz... Yet we seem to have ignored the fact that it's 4GHz on one, maybe two cores if you're lucky. And the all-core speed is quite a bit lower. That goes for Intel, too.

But I digress, this all just means we're not going to mash DEL right after the system is built and dial in the same settings as the rest. We're coming back to the good ole days of fiddle... test.... fiddle some more... test some more...

Sadly I can't toss my hat into the OC ring quite yet, as I've come to find out the RTM of Win 10 (the only ver I have access too currently, due to my limited monthly bandwidth), has a real bug that ends up hard-locking or BSoDing (CLOCK_WATCHDOG_TIMEOUT). Which means I'd not be able to tell if a crash was OC related or general derpiness related

Software improvements aside, the narrative remains- you're working far harder to get memory running at Ryzen-boosting speeds than you are with a contemporary Intel platform, and if you don't go through that trouble, you're behind for gaming.

Granted what's needed to get there has been highlighted and for those interested in getting competitive gaming performance with excellent compute performance, Ryzen is difficult to ignore.

Click to expand...

I think ryzen 5 1600 will be the real pressure on intel, that and the 1500x. The 1600 is 100-200 dollars cheaper than an intel i7-7700k + MB from intel. Pumping extra money into faster ram would claw back some of the cost differential, but if performance in most games is close enough with faster ram + ~4GHz overclock PLUS you get a 6 core cpu compared to the quad from intel.... why would anyone go intel?

Ok, the random spaz that plays comeptitive shooters on a 144Hz 1080p display. And basically everyone else ought to just get the ryzen 5 system.

I do wonder what will happen to ram prices though. Ram speed has not been a thing for some time for gaming as much as it is with these new ryzen cpus. Will that make faster ddr4 ram much more expensive now? Anyone that's been paying attention ought to be eying the 3200MHz ram plus compatible MBs at a bare minimum now.

Supposedly DRAM prices are going to continue rising for at least a few months and then maybe level off towards the end of the year. Very irritating but this sort of thing seems to happen every few years and then 1 or more of the DRAM manufacturers gets busted for collusion or price fixing and you see prices come down again.

I think ryzen 5 1600 will be the real pressure on intel, that and the 1500x. The 1600 is 100-200 dollars cheaper than an intel i7-7700k + MB from intel. Pumping extra money into faster ram would claw back some of the cost differential, but if performance in most games is close enough with faster ram + ~4GHz overclock PLUS you get a 6 core cpu compared to the quad from intel.... why would anyone go intel?

Ok, the random spaz that plays comeptitive shooters on a 144Hz 1080p display. And basically everyone else ought to just get the ryzen 5 system.

I do wonder what will happen to ram prices though. Ram speed has not been a thing for some time for gaming as much as it is with these new ryzen cpus. Will that make faster ddr4 ram much more expensive now? Anyone that's been paying attention ought to be eying the 3200MHz ram plus compatible MBs at a bare minimum now.

Supposedly DRAM prices are going to continue rising for at least a few months and then maybe level off towards the end of the year. Very irritating but this sort of thing seems to happen every few years and then 1 or more of the DRAM manufacturers gets busted for collusion or price fixing and you see prices come down again.

Click to expand...

I hate it, I wanted to buy more than 16gb but prices are getting crazy.

He dropped down settings a notch likely to try and relieve some of the GPU bottleneck. But yes, it's likely a bit more GPU bound.

He mentions the Intel memory at the start. It's a fair criticism, but the 3200 on the Intel did have some good timings. I'd have liked to see a 3600 comparison as well, but you can compare the 3200 ryzen to the intel as well.

I wouldn't say the 7700k was top dog. They seemed to trade blows when you considered both averages and mins.

But yeah, I'd lean towards this being mostly GPU bound.

Click to expand...

I just get annoyed at seeing these obviously biased reviews. As one of the mods here put it in another thread, I think it might have been Kyle actually; they should be benched stock vs stock and/or maxed vs maxed. None of this in between bullshit to shine a little bit more light on one product or the other. This is why I ignore most of these reviews and benchmarks and only gleen over very few of them; I would rather wait for proper reviews and benches from a trusted and unbiased source.

He dropped down settings a notch likely to try and relieve some of the GPU bottleneck. But yes, it's likely a bit more GPU bound.

He mentions the Intel memory at the start. It's a fair criticism, but the 3200 on the Intel did have some good timings. I'd have liked to see a 3600 comparison as well, but you can compare the 3200 ryzen to the intel as well.

I wouldn't say the 7700k was top dog. They seemed to trade blows when you considered both averages and mins.

I just get annoyed at seeing these obviously biased reviews. As one of the mods here put it in another thread, I think it might have been Kyle actually; they should be benched stock vs stock and/or maxed vs maxed. None of this in between bullshit to shine a little bit more light on one product or the other. This is why I ignore most of these reviews and benchmarks and only gleen over very few of them; I wouldrather wait for proper reviews and benches from a trusted and unbiased source.

Click to expand...

At the 1:20 mark in the video he explains the reason he didn't run 3600MHz RAM speed on the i7 7700k, reason being that 3600MHz made little to no difference on the 7700k in "these" benches.
So beyond that, I would say they were max vs max, with Ryzen at 4GHz(3.97) and the i7 at 5GHz.
Some would say that's fair considering the superior IPC on the i7.

At the 1:20 mark in the video he explains the reason he didn't run 3600MHz RAM speed on the i7 7700k, reason being that 3600MHz made little to no difference on the 7700k in "these" benches.
So beyond that, I would say they were max vs max, with Ryzen at 4GHz(3.97) and the i7 at 5GHz.
Some would say that's fair considering the superior IPC on the i7.

Previous benchmarks would say otherwise. There is a clear performance increase at higher DDR4 speeds from 2133 to 3000. Anyone that believes this video review stating that there's no difference on the 7700K between 3000 and 3600 DDR4 speeds is just gullible.

Previous benchmarks would say otherwise. There is a clear performance increase at higher DDR4 speeds from 2133 to 3000. Anyone that believes this video review stating that there's no difference on the 7700K between 3000 and 3600 DDR4 speeds is just gullible.

Click to expand...

I was giving you the reason for him not using 3600MHz..his reason, I know for sure that certain games like FO4 and others certainly benefit from increased RAM speeds.
That's why in my reply to you I put quotes and bolded "these" benches.
I would still call them fair especially since I don't see any one else using that speed on Ryzen, and them being at 1080p.
Which gives Ryzen a leg up at 1080p and Kaby doesn't falter that much from losing 400MHz.
I could see if one was stock or Ryzen was at 2133MHz.

I was giving you the reason for him not using 3600MHz..his reason, I know for sure that certain games like FO4 and others certainly benefit from increased RAM speeds.
That's why in my reply to you I put quotes and bolded "these" benches.
I would still call them fair especially since I don't see any one else using that speed on Ryzen, and them being at 1080p.
Which gives Ryzen a leg up at 1080p and Kaby doesn't falter that much from losing 400MHz.
I could see if one was stock or Ryzen was at 2133MHz.

Click to expand...

I know it was his reasoning and not yours or anyone here. I wasn't trying to imply that you or anyone here has anything to do with his benches. I'm just simply stating the fact that his method is flawed and biased.

While I know Kaby doesn't falter, it also would have seen higher performance if he has benched using 3600 memory clock, same as Ryzen. So for all ntents and purposes the gap stays the same with Kaby leading Ryzen in gaming.

The only information to be gleened from his flawed and biased benches are Ryzen performance increase between DDR7 speeds. His comparison to Kaby is utterly useless because of the biased method employed by the reviewer.

In the article I previously linked, the only game they benched that didn't enjoy fairly good gains was The Division, and even that game saw a miniscule bump (within margin of error however).

I know it was his reasoning and not yours or anyone here. I wasn't trying to imply that you or anyone here has anything to do with his benches. I'm just simply stating the fact that his method is flawed and biased.

While I know Kaby doesn't falter, it also would have seen higher performance if he has benched using 3600 memory clock, same as Ryzen. So for all ntents and purposes the gap stays the same with Kaby leading Ryzen in gaming.

The only information to be gleened from his flawed and biased benches are Ryzen performance increase between DDR7 speeds. His comparison to Kaby is utterly useless because of the biased method employed by the reviewer.

In the article I previously linked, the only game they benched that didn't enjoy fairly good gains was The Division, and even that game saw a miniscule bump (within margin of error however).

Click to expand...

What I gained from the video, taking the 7700k out of the picture and comparing Ryzen
at 2933MHz(because most people still can't hit 3200MHz) vs 3600MHz made a world of difference in over all FPS IMHO.
Just imagine what Ryzen could do at 4000MHz.